# Stirling-PDF vs tunesynctool

> Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.

| | Stirling-PDF | tunesynctool |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 87/100 ✓ | 41/100 |
| Rank in category | #1 of 46 in Document Management | #43 of 59 in Music Streaming |
| GitHub stars | 95 266 ✓ | 158 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +2 353 | — |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 25 ✓ | 1 |
| Latest release | v3.2.2 · 24 Oct 2026 ✓ | v1.2.2 · 6 Jun 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate ✓ | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes ✓ | No |
| License | Other | GPL-2.0 |
| Main language | Typescript | Python |

## Which one should you pick?

Stirling-PDF scores 87/100 against 41/100 for tunesynctool, so it is the safer default.

Stirling-PDF ships more often: 25 stable releases in the past year, against 1 for tunesynctool.

If you want the quickest setup, Stirling-PDF is easier to run; tunesynctool needs more configuration.

Stirling-PDF is growing faster right now (+2 353 stars in 30 days).

## Details

- [Stirling-PDF](https://selfhost.directory/project/stirling-pdf) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/stirling-pdf.md)
- [tunesynctool](https://selfhost.directory/project/tunesynctool) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/tunesynctool.md)

---
Source: https://selfhost.directory/compare/stirling-pdf-vs-tunesynctool